==============================  CFJ 2697  ==============================

    Intending to perform a change in a public forum, then waiting 4
    days, is sufficient to give players a reasonable opportunity to
    review the change, for the purpose of rule 101(iv).

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Walker
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Pavitra
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       19 Sep 2009 20:07:00 GMT
Assigned to Walker:                     23 Sep 2009 22:29:23 GMT
Walker recused:                         29 Sep 2009 18:17:41 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra:                    03 Oct 2009 19:54:13 GMT
Pavitra recused:                        03 Oct 2009 19:55:35 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        03 Oct 2009 19:56:57 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by omd:             03 Oct 2009 21:56:01 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 08:51 -0400, comex wrote:
> I think the requirement here is stronger than in 2624.  In that case
> the rule was quite specific, requiring that you announced that you
> intended to do X. A message saying that you intended to do X without
> objection may technically satisfy that, but it's not ordinary-language
> valid notice for doing it with another mechanism.

[initiation of this case]
As far as I can tell, this should be a trivial TRUE; if it
isn't, then the vast majority of contract amendments never happened.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

The judge should consider whether explicitly and clearly specifying a
method of change in the intent, and then attempting to use a different
and "unreviewed" actual method of change, is misleading enough to
interfere with the review process.  For example, if you are explicitly
told at the outset that you have seven days to review it (and the seven
days is in keeping with the rules) so you decide to look at it later,
but then you are only given four, did that make the opportunity
unreasonable?  If you are told that its up for a vote, and you count
people voting against, but then the votes are ignored by a short-
circuited unannounced process, could you have adequately reviewed so
as to consider your response?

Further, the judge should consider whether "intend" in the general
natural language sense is the same as posting a R1728 dependent-action
intention (the judgement in CFJ 2692 implies that a R1728 intent posting
is not necessarily a "natural" posting of intent).

========================================================================

Judge omd's Arguments:

UNDETERMINED.  In general, if an active player is publicly requested,
implicitly or explicitly, to review a document, then waiting four days
is sufficient to give em a reasonable opportunity to review it.
Simply publishing the document and waiting four days is not sufficient
for this purpose: we don't expect every player to thoroughly review
everything posted to the public fora.  But intending to amend a
contract which binds the player usually counts as an implicit request;
the exception is if the player reasonably believes at some point
during the four day interval that the amendment will almost certainly
not go through, in which case (in eir reasonable belief) e can safely
ignore it.

Although there was a plethora of objections in this case, ais523 made
it clear that e intended at least some of eir (identical) amendment
attempts to go through despite them, and nobody could have reasonably
discounted this as at least a possibility.  In this case, therefore,
every player who was a member of at least one public contract had the
reasonable opportunity to review the amendment.

========================================================================